Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v1] Add and report the new "in_hot_standby" GUCpseudo-variable.
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v1] Add and report the new "in_hot_standby" GUCpseudo-variable. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 84dac867-d911-8f28-776b-a868dde86ee2@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v1] Add and report the new "in_hot_standby" GUC pseudo-variable. (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v1] Add and report the new "in_hot_standby" GUC pseudo-variable.
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v1] Add and report the new "in_hot_standby" GUC pseudo-variable. |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/22/17 14:09, Robert Haas wrote: >> The opposite means primary. I can flip the GUC name to "is_primary", if >> that's clearer. > Hmm, I don't find that clearer. "hot standby" has a very specific > meaning; "primary" isn't vague, but I would say it's less specific. The problem I have is that there is already a GUC named "hot_standby", which determines whether an instance is in hot (as opposed to warm?) mode if it is a standby. This is proposing to add a setting named "in_hot_standby" which says nothing about the hotness, but something about the standbyness. Note that these are all in the same namespace. I think we could use "in_recovery", which would be consistent with existing naming. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: